| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
" However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced. Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?" It is about knowing, more important how we know what we know; gads. If one tests you and you hear a difference in wire and then by putting a cloth over the wire connections you are no longer able to do better then random, we now know something; gads. What we know we now know is that the perception of difference is directly related to knowledge of which wire is connected; gads. We then are justified to deduce that the "better/worse" is produced in the brain and not in the properties of the wire; gads. If we in fact know something else in that instance, please do tell us that we may grasp; gads. |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:B0b1c.102451$Xp.438688@attbi_s54...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard in detail, not just in general. If what you "heard" you only imagined, then we can't explain in detail what you "heard," because we can't know everything that was going on in your head at the time. What you *imagined* you heard could have been affected by the order in which you listened to the amps, for all we know. All "sighted bias" offers is a *possible* explanation for two things: 1) the fact that you perceived a difference among these amps at all; and 2) the fact that, once having identified a certain sound with each amp, your subsequent auditions confirmed those impressions. That this explanation is indeed possible is a proven scientific fact, and Steven Sullivan has suggested a few textbooks which will confirm that. Repeated trials that confirm earlier trials are not considered in science to be indicative of bias. Quite the contrary. A basic truth about listening comparisons is this: If you know what you are listening to, then everything you've ever heard, read or thought about that component can affect how you hear it. That's inescapable, my friend. False on its face. |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:08:49 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "chung" wrote in message news:h1S0c.95108$Xp.423683@attbi_s54... He did describe his listening conditions. Maybe you have missed that? Yes, and listening over stax headphones should probably have raised a few cautionary red flags among the objectivists, since listening on a really good set of headphones lets your hear things that ordinary speakers and room reflections might obscure. Indeed yes, they are very sensitive tools, which is why no one has denied that these *might* be real differences. It has however been pointed out that he can't *know* this because sighted listening is *proven* to be useless for determining subtle sonic differences, and it's also been pointed out that it's not a very competent comparison of power amps, which should of course be tested with a representative loudspeaker load, not merely headphones. It's actually *more* likely that the amps would sound the same under such a light load....... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
wrote in message news:G5L0c.92162$Xp.418678@attbi_s54... "Unfortunately, some of the members of this forum, while intellectually understanding it, have a difficult time differentiating between "sight *may* provide a bias that overrides true differences" with "sight *always* overrides true differences and makes your comparison invalid". They should know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility that there are real differences and that you might have heard them." We don't prove a hypothesis, we fail to unprove it,ie. after time and enough effort has been put into a hypothesis and it continues to be unsupported, we turn to more fruitfull lines of questions. The above hypothesis is one such. After decades of tests in humans the idea of there being no expectation bias has failed to be supported. The continuing hope that one more test will suddenly confirm there is no such bias is very slim and we can't really put any faith into it. But if one insists, it would be an easy test to do it once again with amps in a structured blind test in the hopes that finally results will tend away from random. If (in separate, isolated trials) seven test subjects are are left alone in a room with 7 different amps and a Stax Lambda and SRD-7 connected to a high-quality source (I owned the Stax cartidge at the time, on a Magnepan arm and Thorens turntable), with familiarity of how to connect these to the amps, and after these subjects are given however long they want to listen to the set-ups, and all the test subjects report that the Bryston sounds dull and the PS Audio sounds bright, and the Harmon Kardon sounds kind of flat and lifeless, and the Hafler sounds kind of flabby, and the Denon sounds good in most respects but not outstanding in any, would that be good enough for you? No. After they have listened to all the amps long enough to be sure they can thell them apart they have to listen to the amps again without knowing which is which and then tell correctly which is which based on the sound alone. |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:EBg1c.104120$Xp.454675@attbi_s54... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... *snip* previous quote Michael, before anyone can answer the question of why you heard what you thought you heard, the question must first be answered, "Did you really hear it." This is the same question that consumer researchers must answer all the time and the reason that blind testing is the only testing methodology that is ever considered. What you're asking is the equivalent of being presented with a can each of Coke and Pepsi with labels in full sight, telling us you prefer the Coke and then asking us to tell you why you liked the Coke better. Until you can prove under blind conditions that you can distinguish between the two, there is no reliance on your initially stated preference. No way. The burden of proof is on you. I have asserted no position that requires proof. All I've suggested is that in order for the anecdotal experience from your uncontrolled, sighted comparisons to be relied upon, those experiences should be confirned by a blind protocol test. In asserting that you heard what you heard, knowledge of psychology be damned, it is your position that requires proof. I heard these differences as plain as could be. It sometimes takes a while, listening to various snippets of music, before all (or at least most) of the sonic character is revealed. If you read your previous sentence, you'll find the answer as to what bias must be controlled for. It is obvious from your words that you believe that different (nominally competent, operating within their power limitations, etc.) amplifiers have different sonic characters. You believe this deeply as evidenced by all of your posts. How can you profess to sighted listening in an unbiased fashion when confronted by this deeply held belief? Do you honestly believe that you are uniquely in the world capable of eliminating such psychological realities? That would be a most remarkable and arrogant claim, and would fly in the face of generations of psychological research. They may sound the same when listening to soft female vocals, but then you put on something with big bass thwacks, and it immediately becomes clear that one has more 'slam' and speed than the other. That's why I would go back and listen again and again, to try to get a general impression of each amp using a variety of music types. And here again, you are trying "to get a general impression of each amp." If you believed that the amps all fundamentally sounded the same, you would be listening in a completely different way, for completely different things which would yield a different set of biases. The Harmon Kardom simply did not 'jump' when called for. It simply limped along, smoothing out the dynamics and making them soft and fluffy. Blind testing of drugs consists typically NOT of comparing two drugs, such as Zoloft and Paxil, but of a placebo and the genuine drug. That is exactly the point. If the protocol would be either drug A or drug B, the patient would have an expectation of efficacy, similar to your expectation of finding audible differences between the amplifiers. That's why a placebo is used as the control. If you insisted on a comparative blind test of audio equipment, the ABX protocol was developed for exactly the same reason. The analogy to audio listening evaluations is not close. Do you know that the effectiveness of Zoloft and Paxil can be established, even though the mechanism of action is not completely understood? If the patients display and report improved mood, the drug works. If there wouldn't be the control of the blind protocol, you'd never know whether the drug was working or if it was the placebo effect. Why do you continue to deny this mechanism in the audio listening? *snip* Measurements of audio equipment are not comprehensive. That's why I never suggested that equipment be evaluated based on measurements. Listening tests are important, blind listening tests. They are cited simply because they can be measured. Not exactly. They are cited because they do assess the competence of an amplifier. If an amp severely rolls above 10kHz or below 50Hz, or clips at 10 watts of output into a non-reactive 8 ohm load, why would I bother wasting my time listening to it. *snip* So, when you measure signals in audio, you're simply measuring what you can measure easily: where the light is better. Whether all audible differences have anything to do with what can be measured is unknown. I haven't heard this argument in a long time. Perhaps you could tell us what audible differences can't be accounted for by present audio measurements. Till then, I'll trust my ears and not your pronouncements. So far, I have yet to make any pronouncements. |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:18:28 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote: If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is ludicrous. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No, it's a simple fact, easily supported by experiment in the case of subtle differences, such as among nominally competent amplifiers. Why are you so adamant in refusing to accept simple truths? Truth? It's your opinion stated as fact... I have never heard two amplifiers that sound the same That's because you always use sighted listening. QED. - the greatest differences were between tubed and solid state amps - competent ones - and you deny those differences exist. I say no such thing, as you well know. Nope, your comparison method is faulty. The odds are that some of them did indeed sound different, but others did not. I can demonstrate a tube amp and a SS amp which sound obviously and vastly different to a room full of audiioophiles - and I won't actually have to change the connections for them to 'hear' the difference............. So what? So it's a good proof that sighted listening is useless for such comparisons. Why will you not accept the plain fact that sighted comparisons are fatally flawed, and at least *try* it for yourself. What are you afraid of? Will your ego not admit even the possibility of error? Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is fatally flawed. Because it's not a fact - and I can prove it. Will your ego not admit even the possibility of error? Sure it will - that's why I check my opinions by using blind testing. Can you spell *v-a-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n t-e-s-t*? Sure - www.PCABX. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
In Bruce Abrams writes:
"Piotr Wyrostek" wrote in message news:7241c.443481$I06.4948340@attbi_s01... *snip* quoted text Yes, and the same problem exists when you listen to A or B in a DBT. That is, you assign a "label" to the A sound and then to B sound in the same way (i.e that A is "rolled off and that B is "bright") as you described above. There is no difference if you know that the amp is "Harman" or "A". So when you listen to X, you try to hear if it is "bright" or "rolled of". Since this "sound labels" where constructed in your mind, you have to obtain random results from this test, because neither A nor B nor X is bright/dull. If A & B do, in fact, sound different, I should be able to correctly assign "sound labels" with the repective amps and to then identify X as being either A or B. What is your point? But what prevent you from assigning them (labels) incorrcetly? If one can assign a false label to a "harman" amplifier, than one can assign false label to "B" amplifier. This "assigned labels" then mask real diffreneces, if any exists. If, as you said in your original post, one can assign a "false sound label" to an amplifier, or "false labels" to any amplifier from a given set, than for what reason the labels shoud be "true" when subtle differences in sound are present? I do not see any mechanism nor evidence for this. My point is: expectations how things sound, if they are "false", will mask real diffrences (if any), in a DBT too. In other words: if one "imagines" how things sound, he is unable to detect real diffrences blind or not. The problem even remains if you do not know apriori what is "A" and what is "B". When you listen to "A" for the first time, you assign a label to it in the way you described in your first post; for example that "A" is "dull". The same for "B". Than you have zero chance to identify what is X. The problem is that the results are random and they are random INDEPENDENTLY FROM ANY REAL DIFFERENCES between A and B, if any exists. The results are only random if there aren't any audible differences between the amps? What are you trying to say? See above. This invalidates the whole idea od the blind testing. That is, the (correct) premise, that what we hear is influenced by not the sound alone, invalidates the DBT testing method. The purpose of blind testing is to remove the variables other than sound. If you don't know what amp is playing, it's impossible to prejudge it based on anything other than its sound, and if its sound is audibly different than another amp, you should be able to hear the differences and correctly identify X. Piotr Wyrostek |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:13:01 +0000, Michael Scarpitti wrote:
[W. Oland] The ability of knowledge and/or belief to influence how a person perceives something is well established. For example, that is the reason that placebos are used in the trials of new pharmaceuticals. Depending on what is being tested, up to 40% of the people taking the placebo report improvement in their medical condition (and also side effects.) This is completely based on the =expectation= that the drug will make them better. As such, the "real" drug under test must do significantly statistically better than the fake one. You must also understand the drugs are tested on people who are ill and are not necessarily the best judges of the effects. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a typical study, on Zoloft: chart snipped Not sure what =your= point with the chart was all about. It helps illustrate my point. A placebo, by definition, should have virtually no impact, but produces results and side effects in a noticeable number of people. And that's what the chart showed. Much or most of that result is due to psychological aspects of the test subjects involved, whether they are ill or not. Keep in mind that those psychological aspects need not be positve or negative. They need not even be conscious. Manufacturers often spend a great deal of money researching the visual appearance of their product. Others chose an appearance based on instinct or gut feel. Electrical performance aside, a majority of customers respond at least on a subliminal level to the appearance of a product. The same thing applies to auditioning audio equipment, whether amps, speakers, cables or whatever. Unwarranted claim. No basis from generalization from drugs to audio. They are completely different sorts of experiences. We'll just have to disagree. Decades of psychological research on the issue don't suddenly become invalid just because the subject is audio electronics. We're not =that= special! If you know which piece of equipment you are listening to at any given moment, your knowledge and beliefs about that item are going to influence your perception no matter how many times you tell yourself otherwise. What knowledge? What belief? What did I know about Harmon Kradon, PS Audio, or Denon BEFORE I tried them? Nothing! I did not listen to these products before I tried them out. The "knowledge" is nothing more than you =knew= which piece of equipment you were listening to during the audition. It wasn't a blind test. You're making a classic mistake that because you "think" you are neutral that you have successfully eliminated all possible conscious and subconscious influences. That ability would, frankly, make you rather inhuman. Dr. Spock makes for a nice character in a TV show, but that is not how humans are wired. Note that unlike some, I've not made any statement about certain equipment sounding the same. I like my system very much and freely admit a bias in that regard. The pieces I've chosen were not picked using DBT and I feel no strong urge to use that method for selecting my stereo. I freely admit that certain biases may have crept in because of that. What I don't do is pretend that my method would yield the same results as a DBT. That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing your beliefs to enhance your enjoyment of music when using a particular item. Just don't confuse that enjoyment with the results of a double-blind test under carefully controlled conditions. They are two different animals. I have no 'beliefs'. Glad you said that and not me.... g Anyway, this thread has gotten a bit too long-winded for me. I think I'll just sit back from this point on, listen to some music and watch the parade. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:w241c.28038$PR3.503763@attbi_s03... (snip) If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7. Then you will hear the differences. Not necessarily, plus I've already pointed out that this is a *bad* method for comparing amps, since the load is not representative of normal operation. Since I actually DO use the amp to power the earspeakers, it is indeed a perfectly valid test, in fact the most important test. If it sounds bad with the Stax, I can't use it. You must understand listening over speakers is somewhat less useful, as the resolution is lower in speakers, and coloration of the room enters into it. If you want to know what an amp REALLY sounds like, connect it to a Stax transformer and earspeakers. How then different model Stax cast recordings differently. Even if Stax listening is a measure of how good or bad recordings might be (which in my experience does not reveal whole picture) different listeners are again have differing evaluations. (Perhaps I didn't pick up which model Stax you are using, I use the SRM 313 which drives my SR-303 and SR-X MarkIII simultaneously.) |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
wrote in message
news:9xp1c.31735$ko6.305074@attbi_s02... " However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know* what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced. Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?" It is about knowing, more important how we know what we know; gads. If one tests you and you hear a difference in wire and then by putting a cloth over the wire connections you are no longer able to do better then random, we now know something; gads. What we know we now know is that the perception of difference is directly related to knowledge of which wire is connected; gads. We then are justified to deduce that the "better/worse" is produced in the brain and not in the properties of the wire; gads. If we in fact know something else in that instance, please do tell us that we may grasp; gads. Or you may have the oppurtunity to know, upon reflection (gads) that the test might, just might, be causing a problem. But that begs the question that a blind a-b would not be possible using the equipment he was using. Nor is it often possible when comparing amps, without a very expensive control box which may itself interfere with the speaker/amp/cable interaction. |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
... Michael Scarpitti wrote: Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard in detail, not just in general. To claim 'you heard differences because you expected to' is not an explanation at all. It does not account for, for instance, the nature of the differences I heard (dynamic compression, brightness, dullness, etc.). It is the same as explaining fire by invoking 'phlogiston'. It 'explains' nothing. Michael, before anyone can answer the question of why you heard what you thought you heard, the question must first be answered, "Did you really hear it." This is the same question that consumer researchers must answer all the time and the reason that blind testing is the only testing methodology that is ever considered. What you're asking is the equivalent of being presented with a can each of Coke and Pepsi with labels in full sight, telling us you prefer the Coke and then asking us to tell you why you liked the Coke better. Until you can prove under blind conditions that you can distinguish between the two, there is no reliance on your initially stated preference. No way. The burden of proof is on you. I heard these differences as plain as could be. Then why are you refusing to do a double blind test and hear the differences again in this test? Should be a piece of cake. What are you afraid of? If you will recall, he is talking about borrowed amps from 17 years ago. He is also talking about an amp-Stax setup that would not allow quick switching or blind-testing without building a custom-built switching rig, and even that would be tricky. In addition, he doesn't feel the need. Leave it go. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
In Bruce Abrams writes:
"Piotr Wyrostek" wrote in message news:7241c.443481$I06.4948340@attbi_s01... *snip* quoted text Yes, and the same problem exists when you listen to A or B in a DBT. That is, you assign a "label" to the A sound and then to B sound in the same way (i.e that A is "rolled off and that B is "bright") as you described above. There is no difference if you know that the amp is "Harman" or "A". So when you listen to X, you try to hear if it is "bright" or "rolled of". Since this "sound labels" where constructed in your mind, you have to obtain random results from this test, because neither A nor B nor X is bright/dull. If A & B do, in fact, sound different, I should be able to correctly assign "sound labels" with the repective amps and to then identify X as being either A or B. What is your point? If one is able to assign a "false sound label" to an amplifier, "Harman" or "B", or, assign a false label to any amplifier from a given set, by the mechanism you described in your original post, than what should prevent him to do so when the amplifiers are in fact different? If you have to amplifiers, A and B, either A is same as B, or they are different. Why on earth one should assign "labels" to sounds only when amplifiers are same, and magically hear them "as they are" when they are different? If, when listening to "A" for the first time, one assigns a "dull" label to it, and when listening to "B" assigns a "bright" label, by the machanism you described, then one has zero chance to correctly identify X, no matter if A and B are same or different, because "labels" mask any real differences. The problem is that the results are random and they are random INDEPENDENTLY FROM ANY REAL DIFFERENCES between A and B, if any exists. The results are only random if there aren't any audible differences between the amps? What are you trying to say? Just that the results can be random even if there are real differences between the amps -see above. This invalidates the whole idea od the blind testing. That is, the (correct) premise, that what we hear is influenced by not the sound alone, invalidates the DBT testing method. The purpose of blind testing is to remove the variables other than sound. If you don't know what amp is playing, it's impossible to prejudge it based on anything other than its sound, and if its sound is audibly different than another amp, you should be able to hear the differences and correctly identify X. see above again. Piotr Wyrostek |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
(Mkuller) wrote:
Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is fatally flawed. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Because it's not a fact - and I can prove it. mkuller wrote: ...until a someone provides a *validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music as the program - your strong beliefs are just speculation. Finally! That's just what we've all been waiting for - let's see your so-called *proof*. *Real proof* would convince all of us skeptics, that you and the other few objectivists are right and leave no doubt whatsover to anyone, finally ending the "endless debate". Show us what you got... Regards, Mike |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:25:49 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: You and other converted believers simply ignore the latter possibility and have never attempted to validate the adequacy of your preferred tests. As has now been said ad nauseum, the blind protocols have been shown to be transparent down to the threshold of human hearing. The tests validate themselves. It is something that is redundant to refer to in research. The argument is made that these are 'clinical studies' and do not correlate with actual use. Partial loudness is not something that disappears outside the lab. If the true believers would study and understand what "partial loudness" means you wouldn't have to carry on like this, and you can still prefer and discuss what you like. A win-win for everybody. Below are some references to help understand what partial loudness means. It is cursory and by no means complete. But anyone can go to google and type in "partial loudness+threshold and get hundreds of references. http://www.eas.asu.edu/~spanias/pape...INTER-1921.PDF http://www.ipo.tue.nl/homepages/dher...&V_notes3.html http://hearing.psychol.cam.ac.uk/default.htm http://sound.eti.pg.gda.pl/SRS/psychoacoust.html http://asa.aip.org/books/ear.html http://www.booksmatter.com/b3540650636.htm http://server1.cdsp.neu.edu/info/stu...h/Loudness.pdf |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message news:9xp1c.31735$ko6.305074@attbi_s02... " However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know* what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced. Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?" It is about knowing, more important how we know what we know; gads. If one tests you and you hear a difference in wire and then by putting a cloth over the wire connections you are no longer able to do better then random, we now know something; gads. What we know we now know is that the perception of difference is directly related to knowledge of which wire is connected; gads. We then are justified to deduce that the "better/worse" is produced in the brain and not in the properties of the wire; gads. If we in fact know something else in that instance, please do tell us that we may grasp; gads. Or you may have the oppurtunity to know, upon reflection (gads) that the test might, just might, be causing a problem. But that begs the question that a blind a-b would not be possible using the equipment he was using. Why not? Nor is it often possible when comparing amps, without a very expensive control box which may itself interfere with the speaker/amp/cable interaction. The "very expensive" control box simply contains a relay or a manual switch. If you are concerned that the relay/switch *must* add distortion, then simply do a control test to eliminate that fear. You can listen to the system with the control box bypassed or not bypassed, and see if you can detect any difference, blind, of course. Also remember that if there is any contribution at all (which there should not be if the control box is carefully designed), that contribution applies to all the amps. Remember, Harry, we are talking about huge differences between amps that even someone blind and deaf can hear them!  . How can a relay/switchobscure that kind of difference? In fact, the Stax headphones present an easier load for the amp to drive, and that the control box should make even less of any contribution, if there is any to begin with. |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
(Mkuller) wrote:
Can you spell *v-a-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n t-e-s-t*? Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Sure - www.PCABX. Aparently you don't understand what a *validation test* is in science... Regards, Mike |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Piotr Wyrostek" wrote in message
news:ITq1c.451780$I06.5069946@attbi_s01... *snip* quoted text If A & B do, in fact, sound different, I should be able to correctly assign "sound labels" with the repective amps and to then identify X as being either A or B. What is your point? If one is able to assign a "false sound label" to an amplifier, "Harman" or "B", or, assign a false label to any amplifier from a given set, by the mechanism you described in your original post, than what should prevent him to do so when the amplifiers are in fact different? If you have to amplifiers, A and B, either A is same as B, or they are different. Why on earth one should assign "labels" to sounds only when amplifiers are same, and magically hear them "as they are" when they are different? If, when listening to "A" for the first time, one assigns a "dull" label to it, and when listening to "B" assigns a "bright" label, by the machanism you described, then one has zero chance to correctly identify X, no matter if A and B are same or different, because "labels" mask any real differences. I'm not sure where you're going with this line of argument. If A & B do, in fact, sound different, then the first time you listen to them you should be able to correctly and accurately ascribe appropriate characteristics to each that you could then identify X by. It is only if the two amps sound the same that you're forced into arbitrarily incorrect labels. |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:Sir1c.172000$jk2.621645@attbi_s53... (Mkuller) wrote: Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is fatally flawed. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Because it's not a fact - and I can prove it. mkuller wrote: ...until a someone provides a *validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music as the program - your strong beliefs are just speculation. Finally! That's just what we've all been waiting for - let's see your so-called *proof*. *Real proof* would convince all of us skeptics, that you and the other few objectivists are right and leave no doubt whatsover to anyone, finally ending the "endless debate". Show us what you got... Several months you were presented the results of a Swedish Audio Society (or similarly named audiophile group) paper detailing the results of a blind listening test of CD players. The results showed a statistically positive result in the participants being able to distinguish between certain of the players under test. You were asked to respond to those results in light of a "validation test" and failed to do so. Perhaps you'd like to now? |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:32:37 +0000, outsor wrote:
" However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know* what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced. Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?" It is about knowing, more important how we know what we know; gads. If one tests you and you hear a difference in wire and then by putting a cloth over the wire connections you are no longer able to do better then random, we now know something; gads. What we know we now know is that the perception of difference is directly related to knowledge of which wire is connected; gads. We then are justified to deduce that the "better/worse" is produced in the brain and not in the properties of the wire; gads. If we in fact know something else in that instance, please do tell us that we may grasp; gads. __________________________________________________ ______ Whoa!...drop back, punt, reset!! (And also a few "Gads"). The goal here is to be able to select a wire that might have some redeeming characteristics to those listening. Firstly, we want to allow the mental "ear-brain" process to isolate just which wire seems to have certain "better" characteristics...and do this without any "clutter" regarding brand recognition in the in the initial listening period. (This is a major harping point with the hard-line "all is the same" objectivist.) Then, after that mental process tends to lean to a particular wire, one will normally find out which brand name it carries. ...not the other way around!! It is the other way around that bothers those brethern of ours of the Objectivist tilt! ...I understand some of their objections in this scenario! It is on this point that they will tend to lead you into a "Semantic" jungle with worlds like "bias", etc. Perhaps, the word should be "prejudice"..to pre-judge, your mind is made up..this fits better! Now..this was not meant to be confusing. Perhaps not difficult to...gulp! Grasp. Sorry the "grasp" offended anyone deeply. Not intended to do that! I did not understand most of the "what we know is now we know what we know" but, I think I got the gist of it. The above explanation should clear up some of my thoughts on this matter. Understand, the listening scenario I suggested is not to imply I could pick out a wire by name brand...however, in the quiet listening space of my own audio system I can detect which cable fits best in that audio environment.. ..in the intial stages..the brand is not a factor. Naturally I would need to know that, should I desire to go to a vendor to purchase it. Grasp that the initial stage of this scenario is the important one...not attaching a vendor name to the wire. Leonard... P.S. I'm in the process of assisting with the beta testing of an upgrade to an OS and in this case to the newsreader..which does not have a spell checker and I have noted some issues with the rewrap line manipulator. So bare with me if this all comes out a little ragged. |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"...until a someone provides a
*validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music as the program - your strong beliefs are just speculation. Finally! That's just what we've all been waiting for - let's see your so-called *proof*. *Real proof* would convince all of us skeptics, that you and the other few objectivists are right and leave no doubt whatsover to anyone, finally ending the "endless debate". Show us what you got..." And what test will validate the validation test that will validate the ... The scientific community has shown what it has and it corresponds qquite well to physical reality; what better validation then it works is required for this backwater of research in the perception of electronic reproduction. If any showing need be done it is on the part of those making extraordinary claims that they and the few like them are exceptions and that they can continue in the comfort of not having done even a controlled test at all. It is enough to say "it might be true", as though that truism carries the day on behalf of their mutual/self confirming experience/speculation. Until they test their claim to being exceptions, it is no better then any opinion one can get at any corner bar on any evening. It is easy to show how the ear/brain can be tricked, it is the norm in fact that this is a part of everyday experience; it happens in the perception process, not in the hardware. |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:RJq1c.451737$I06.5070130@attbi_s01...
Until you can prove under blind conditions that you can distinguish between the two, there is no reliance on your initially stated preference. No way. The burden of proof is on you. I heard these differences as plain as could be. I'm sure you did, and many of us have tried to explain to you exactly how this happens. You seem determined to ignore plain explanations, and you refuse to accept the possibility that you could be wrong, and just try a blind test for yourself, so I for one am giving this up. What 'explanation' is this? You simply'assert' that 'previous studies' show that bias can affect our perception. TThat is like saying fire is caused by excessive plgiston. It does not explain how any particular case is affected. Till then, I'll trust my ears and not your pronouncements. That's exactly the problem - you refuse to *trust* your ears, you insist on *knowing* what is connected. I just rang up my friend who was with me listening to some of these amps, and I asked him if he recalled hearing any difference among the amps (he said at the time he did). He said it was 'easy'. He is not an audiophile and does not have any high-grade audio equipment. He confirms what I heard. |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:25:49 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: You and other converted believers simply ignore the latter possibility and have never attempted to validate the adequacy of your preferred tests. As has now been said ad nauseum, the blind protocols have been shown to be transparent down to the threshold of human hearing. The tests validate themselves. It is something that is redundant to refer to in research. The argument is made that these are 'clinical studies' and do not correlate with actual use. Partial loudness is not something that disappears outside the lab. If the true believers would study and understand what "partial loudness" means you wouldn't have to carry on like this, and you can still prefer and discuss what you like. A win-win for everybody. Below are some references to help understand what partial loudness means. It is cursory and by no means complete. But anyone can go to google and type in "partial loudness+threshold and get hundreds of references. http://www.eas.asu.edu/~spanias/pape...INTER-1921.PDF http://www.ipo.tue.nl/homepages/dher...&V_notes3.html http://hearing.psychol.cam.ac.uk/default.htm http://sound.eti.pg.gda.pl/SRS/psychoacoust.html http://asa.aip.org/books/ear.html http://www.booksmatter.com/b3540650636.htm http://server1.cdsp.neu.edu/info/stu...h/Loudness.pdf How about pattern recognition and hard-wired emotional responses, things that may be operation even below "thresholds of hearing" much like small signal recognition below noise level. Don't think pattern recognition has anything to do with it. How about "that sounds real" versus "something is wrong". Those are not responses to a single two-dimensional volume difference. Those are strong, recalled patterns that experience and live music associate with a cluster of related characteristics that together signals "sounds real" or "something wrong". Likewise the anomalies that result in a lack of rhythmic response versus the normal "toe tapping" to a rhythmic piece of music? None of this has been researched with regard to blind comparative test interference, versus monadic, evaluative testing and ordinary music listening. Until that is done, the scientific work on "thresholds" just doesn't amount to much. |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
As mentioned before you demand that we demonstrate why your individual
experience shouldn't be an exception to well known principles, summed up in "I know what I heard" and no research will change my mind. The burden is just oppisite, why is your not unique experience an exception? Below is the proof you now provide, as well as continued proof of the mutual reinforcement effect in non blind testing: "I just rang up my friend who was with me listening to some of these amps, and I asked him if he recalled hearing any difference among the amps (he said at the time he did). He said it was 'easy'. He is not an audiophile and does not have any high-grade audio equipment. He confirms what I heard." |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Mar 2004 19:40:02 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: chung wrote in message ... Several questions: 1. Did you level-match during your listening tests? I listened in succession to the same piece of music. I adjusted the volume as necessary. The differences I heard had nothing to do with volume. They were GROSS differences. That's the first fatal flaw. It is well known (Musical Fidelity even used it very cynically in the X-10D) that a level difference of about 0.5-1dB is easily detected as change in sound *quality* (more detail etc), but is not detected as a difference in volume. It is likely that your perceptions are in error, and you *must* level-match to +/- 0.1 dB to avoid such problems. 2. Do you think you can tell them apart in a DBT? I KNOW I could, with perhaps one exception. Two were fairly close, but the others were all quite different. The Harmon Kardon was similar in tonal quality to the Denon, but it had less dynamic impact, which was not noticeable until sharp, powerful bass transients occurred. Then it was obvious. If you played Mozart's soft strings on the two, it would be hard to tell them apart. But play Mahler's 5th, and it's a dramatic difference..... Then *do* a blind test - and tell us what happened. I guarantee you'll be surprised........... 3. Can you tell differences between cables? Yes, I can. Then prove it in a blind test. There is a pool of between 4 and 5 thousand dollars waiting to be collected by anyone who can do this. You may be interested to know that in the five years or so that it's been around, no one has even *tried* to collect it. Good Lord, that much money riding on telling cables apart? Sooner or later I'd have to hit it. Well worth the necessary reiterative effort. |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:w241c.28038$PR3.503763@attbi_s03... (snip) If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7. Then you will hear the differences. Not necessarily, plus I've already pointed out that this is a *bad* method for comparing amps, since the load is not representative of normal operation. Since I actually DO use the amp to power the earspeakers, it is indeed a perfectly valid test, in fact the most important test. If it sounds bad with the Stax, I can't use it. You must understand listening over speakers is somewhat less useful, as the resolution is lower in speakers, and coloration of the room enters into it. If you want to know what an amp REALLY sounds like, connect it to a Stax transformer and earspeakers. How then different model Stax cast recordings differently. Even if Stax listening is a measure of how good or bad recordings might be (which in my experience does not reveal whole picture) different listeners are again have differing evaluations. (Perhaps I didn't pick up which model Stax you are using, I use the SRM 313 which drives my SR-303 and SR-X MarkIII simultaneously.) The Stax unit I use is driven directly by the power amp through a transformer, called SRD-7. The one you have has a power amp supplied by Stax. You chose what you want in a power amp, and the sonic character of the power amp is revealed quite clearly by this set-up. Here is a similar set-up: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...photoho sting and here is the SRD-7 by itself: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...ategory=32 74 If you click on the bottom picure, you can see the power amp taps. |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:12:28 GMT, lcw999 wrote: [snip, snip] Indeed so - and there has been a raft of research over the last century into human hearing thresholds and acuity, all of which supports the notion that 'wire is wire'. Says who..the issue here is not "thresholds or acuity" Yes, that is *exactly* the issue. If it didn't make it past your aural receptors, then you didn't really hear it. Well, that would depend on the ontology of reality, i.e., whether there's reality or not, or perhaps whether it's better to be real than not to be real. What's so real, or really good, about reality? [snip] So, I respect your hearing differences...no arrogance here about what you do or do not hear. If one hears cable or amplifier differences..so be it! Q.E.D. I meant, real or really good, aside from the part about spending all that money on cables and stuff. [yet more snippety snip] Not my 'mindset', simple historical fact. This has never happened, not to me nor to any one else reporting to this forum. Of course, next week it might happen - and next week a sasquatch might run for President. I estimate the odds to be about the same. (But be careful: this proves too much. Cf. incumbent vice president.) [snip] I have been in situations where this was accomplished..all noted some differences. The Universe still remains..there were differences. I heard differences, others heard differences some did not agree on which was better...as it should be! [snip (though starting to lose the will after that last bit)] We all know this.. please...one does not gain some pinnacle of insight by knowing this...it is known by the the lowly High-End affectionado. Now, that we used to call a Freudian slip. These alchemist-type guys are way too much fun. |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
(Mkuller) wrote:
Why not admit the fact that your application of the DBT *most likely* is fatally flawed. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Because it's not a fact - and I can prove it. mkuller wrote: ...until a someone provides a *validation test* for open-ended audio component comparisons with music as the program - your strong beliefs are just speculation. Finally! That's just what we've all been waiting for - let's see your so-called *proof*. *Real proof* would convince all of us skeptics, that you and the other few objectivists are right and leave no doubt whatsover to anyone, finally ending the "endless debate". Show us what you got... Bruce Abrams wrote: Several months you were presented the results of a Swedish Audio Society (or similarly named audiophile group) paper detailing the results of a blind listening test of CD players. The results showed a statistically positive result in the participants being able to distinguish between certain of the players under test. You were asked to respond to those results in light of a "validation test" and failed to do so. Perhaps you'd like to now? In this particular test, one of the CD players was described as sounding "brighter" than the other; i.e. the differences were large enough in one single dimension that they could even be identified in an open-ended DBT with music as the source. Please explain how one single example of a positive DBT could possibly *validate* the test in all audio component comparison applications - when the differences are not as large or are multi-dimensional (e.g. imaging). Regards, Mike |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"chung" wrote in message
news:JDr1c.469849$na.1111891@attbi_s04... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message news:9xp1c.31735$ko6.305074@attbi_s02... " However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know* what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced. Gads...we've missed the point, as always....it is not "knowing what is connected"..it is about one cable sounding a bit better or worse than another. Simple issue, but hard to grasp?" It is about knowing, more important how we know what we know; gads. If one tests you and you hear a difference in wire and then by putting a cloth over the wire connections you are no longer able to do better then random, we now know something; gads. What we know we now know is that the perception of difference is directly related to knowledge of which wire is connected; gads. We then are justified to deduce that the "better/worse" is produced in the brain and not in the properties of the wire; gads. If we in fact know something else in that instance, please do tell us that we may grasp; gads. Or you may have the oppurtunity to know, upon reflection (gads) that the test might, just might, be causing a problem. But that begs the question that a blind a-b would not be possible using the equipment he was using. Why not? Nor is it often possible when comparing amps, without a very expensive control box which may itself interfere with the speaker/amp/cable interaction. The "very expensive" control box simply contains a relay or a manual switch. If you are concerned that the relay/switch *must* add distortion, then simply do a control test to eliminate that fear. You can listen to the system with the control box bypassed or not bypassed, and see if you can detect any difference, blind, of course. Also remember that if there is any contribution at all (which there should not be if the control box is carefully designed), that contribution applies to all the amps. Remember, Harry, we are talking about huge differences between amps that even someone blind and deaf can hear them! . How can a relay/switchobscure that kind of difference? In fact, the Stax headphones present an easier load for the amp to drive, and that the control box should make even less of any contribution, if there is any to begin with. In the case of amplifiers, it requires insertion of other/different/additional wire and also interferes with the normal speaker impedance/amplifier interaction. Thus the test itself adds possible intervening and invalidating variables. |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Simply put a cloth over the connections of the active item under test,
everything else you suggest below is satisfied; you just don't know what is connected when. The cloth can in no way change ability to do pattern recognition. With or without the cloth this remains a purely "simply use your ears" test. Ability to speculate about some maybe thing is not the same as you doing the test. The below is both a strawman and a red herring. It is your speculation, the burden of proof is on you, otherwise the long held testing approaches have nothing to undermine their continued use and the excellent track record they have to now displayed. "How about pattern recognition and hard-wired emotional responses, things that may be operation even below "thresholds of hearing" much like small signal recognition below noise level. Don't think pattern recognition has anything to do with it. How about "that sounds real" versus "something is wrong". Those are not responses to a single two-dimensional volume difference. Those are strong, recalled patterns that experience and live music associate with a cluster of related characteristics that together signals "sounds real" or "something wrong". Likewise the anomalies that result in a lack of rhythmic response versus the normal "toe tapping" to a rhythmic piece of music? None of this has been researched with regard to blind comparative test interference, versus monadic, evaluative testing and ordinary music listening. Until that is done, the scientific work on "thresholds" just doesn't amount to much." |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
Harry Lavo wrote:
How about pattern recognition and hard-wired emotional responses, things that may be operation even below "thresholds of hearing" much like small signal recognition below noise level. Don't think pattern recognition has anything to do with it. How about "that sounds real" versus "something is wrong". Those are not responses to a single two-dimensional volume difference. Those are strong, recalled patterns that experience and live music associate with a cluster of related characteristics that together signals "sounds real" or "something wrong". Likewise the anomalies that result in a lack of rhythmic response versus the normal "toe tapping" to a rhythmic piece of music? None of this has been researched with regard to blind comparative test interference, versus monadic, evaluative testing and ordinary music listening. Until that is done, the scientific work on "thresholds" just doesn't amount to much. I give up. You obviously don't understand that partial loudness is not two dimensional. Since you keep saying 'loudness' and not 'partial loudness' (they are not the same thing) you haven't even tried. Carry on if that makes you happy. |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
Linear Mode
